Fort Hood: 12 Dead 31 Injured

[USFREEDOM911]

are you saying dixie is right....in that obama is to blame for this?

Obama lied and soldiers died.

Sounds familiar and has a nice ring to it, doesn't it.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

are you saying dixie is right....in that obama is to blame for this?

Let's get something clear you little empty-headed twit... I didn't say Obama was to blame for this! The ONLY one to blame is the guy who was pulling the trigger! Does Obama bear SOME responsibility for hem-hawing around on what to do in Afghanistan? I think he does! I think this is a PRIME example of what happens when your leader sits on his ass and becomes indecisive regarding people's lives.

 

[Canceled1]

are you saying dixie is right....in that obama is to blame for this?

I am saying I agree that Obama is not focused on matters he needs to be focused on, in my opinion. I am saying that Obama is as culpable as everyone tried to make GWB for Katrina and every natural disaster or catastrophe that came along under his watch.

I don't think Obama is any more responsible for the deaths of the soldiers at Ft Hood than the crazed accusations that tried to blame 9/11 on Bush.

I think there is truth in Dixie's words about how out of touch Obama is with the military. His disregard for General McKrystals request is one misstep of note.

I think there is truth in his words that portray Obama as a Hollywood movie star and treating the White House like it's Beverly Hills Hotel. I have yet to see him act like a real president rather than the perpetual campaigner.

You can sheath your sword Yurt.

 

[TuTu Monroe]

All the reports I am hearing is saying Afghanistan is where he was going.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091107/ap_on_re_us/us_fort_hood_shooting

"Hasan was due to be deployed to Afghanistan to help soldiers with combat stress, a task he'd done stateside with returning soldiers, the Army said. Army spokeswoman Col. Cathy Abbott was uncertain when Hasan was to leave but he was in the preparation stage of deployment, which can take months."

November 28 and he was getting more agitated with each passing day.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Details are sketchy, but reports indicate this crazy was perturbed about his pending deployment to Afghanistan, so he went postal.

Blood on Obama's hands, if you ask me. Because this idiot can't make a decision regarding the war policy, and allows the situation to fester for weeks on end, while he parades his happy ass around campaigning for his loser cronies and entertaining his wife in high style. It's yet another example of why this man should have never been elected president, and we should never put a liberal philosopher in the Oval Office at wartime! Obama is good at pontificating generalized platitudes in a pot-smoke filled room to a bunch of intellectuals, but when this philosophical liberal bullshit is foist into the real world and put into practice, it is always riddled with "unintended consequences" ...to which the liberals all view with Nancy Pelosi eyes, and claim that no one saw this coming!

When General McKrystal said he needed more troops to win this war, there should have been NO hesitation, NO pause, NO thinking about it for 3 months! The appropriate presidential response should have been to immediately order the deployment of whatever the General says he needs! Instead, we got this philosophical liberal rhetoric from the White House, and have literally gone back in time to a pre-war debate of what our strategy should be! We are already there! Things keep going on in the real world, like people still get deployed there, and have to go risk their lives and leave their families to be there! Yet, here our president has decided this is far too important to make a quick decision... well congrats Mr. Prez... Ft. Hood is what happens when you are indecisive as a leader.

Let's get something clear you little empty-headed twit... I didn't say Obama was to blame for this! The ONLY one to blame is the guy who was pulling the trigger! Does Obama bear SOME responsibility for hem-hawing around on what to do in Afghanistan? I think he does! I think this is a PRIME example of what happens when your leader sits on his ass and becomes indecisive regarding people's lives.

maybe i just never saw your lies before....but i remember you used to have good points and were not dishonest.....do you not realize that when you post something it is on the "record" if you will and easy to go back and verify?

your entire OP was pretty much blaming obama for the whole thing. you didn't mention the actual killer at all. to claim you didn't blame obama is simply not true....afterall....this is what happens when you are an indecisive leader....that is putting the blame on obama....

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Obama lied and soldiers died.

Sounds familiar and has a nice ring to it, doesn't it.

that has nothing to do with what happened there...

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

November 28 and he was getting more agitated with each passing day.

Can you really blame him for being agitated? I mean, yeah, you can certainly blame him for mowing down his own comrades, and I'm not trying to make an excuse for what he did... but to be agitated about having to go half way around the world to some third-world hellhole, where you are literally risking your life to wear an American flag in public, while your president mulls over whether or not we're going to actually try and win the war, or whether to pull out? Yeah, I can see being very fucking agitated about risking my life and leaving my family for what could potentially be an abandoned mission.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

QUOTE=usaloyal2theend;548833]I am saying I agree that Obama is not focused on matters he needs to be focused on, in my opinion. I am saying that Obama is as culpable as everyone tried to make GWB for Katrina and every natural disaster or catastrophe that came along under his watch.

i see....so because idiot liberals blamed bush for katrina, you must blame obama for this....??

I don't think Obama is any more responsible for the deaths of the soldiers at Ft Hood than the crazed accusations that tried to blame 9/11 on Bush.

I think there is truth in Dixie's words about how out of touch Obama is with the military. His disregard for General McKrystals request is one misstep of note.

i agree, he is out of touch, but he is not to blame.

I think there is truth in his words that portray Obama as a Hollywood movie star and treating the White House like it's Beverly Hills Hotel. I have yet to see him act like a real president rather than the perpetual campaigner.

You can sheath your sword Yurt.

what sword? questions, truth, debate? you want me to sheath that? i don't understand your last sentence....

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

maybe i just never saw your lies before....but i remember you used to have good points and were not dishonest.....do you not realize that when you post something it is on the "record" if you will and easy to go back and verify?

your entire OP was pretty much blaming obama for the whole thing. you didn't mention the actual killer at all. to claim you didn't blame obama is simply not true....afterall....this is what happens when you are an indecisive leader....that is putting the blame on obama....

Thanks for posting my exact words and showing that nowhere did I ever say Obama was to blame. It takes a big man to admit he has told a flat out lie, I appreciate you coming clean on that.

 

[TuTu Monroe]

No, you f'in moron. The pathetic one is the one who started a thread within minutes of the incident, placing blame on Obama's Afghan policy, when the guy was being deployed to Iraq, and politicizing it immediately.

That's the pathetic one.

Well, the mass murderer DID say the US Foreign Policy sickened him and he wanted all Muslims to rise up against us.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Thanks for posting my exact words and showing that nowhere did I ever say Obama was to blame. It takes a big man to admit he has told a flat out lie, I appreciate you coming clean on that.

i have no idea what happend to you while you were gone, i used to like your posts. i still do, but, dixie.....you're being completely dishonest by claiming you didn't blame obama....let's see your words (and i'll do the full quote so you can't come back later and claim i took you out of context):

Blood on Obama's hands, if you ask me. Because this idiot can't make a decision regarding the war policy, and allows the situation to fester for weeks on end, while he parades his happy ass around campaigning for his loser cronies and entertaining his wife in high style. It's yet another example of why this man should have never been elected president, and we should never put a liberal philosopher in the Oval Office at wartime! Obama is good at pontificating generalized platitudes in a pot-smoke filled room to a bunch of intellectuals, but when this philosophical liberal bullshit is foist into the real world and put into practice, it is always riddled with "unintended consequences" ...to which the liberals all view with Nancy Pelosi eyes, and claim that no one saw this coming!

When General McKrystal said he needed more troops to win this war, there should have been NO hesitation, NO pause, NO thinking about it for 3 months! The appropriate presidential response should have been to immediately order the deployment of whatever the General says he needs! Instead, we got this philosophical liberal rhetoric from the White House, and have literally gone back in time to a pre-war debate of what our strategy should be! We are already there! Things keep going on in the real world, like people still get deployed there, and have to go risk their lives and leave their families to be there! Yet, here our president has decided this is far too important to make a quick decision... well congrats Mr. Prez... Ft. Hood is what happens when you are indecisive as a leader.

are you actually claiming that....blood on someone's hands means they are NOT to blame?

are you actually claiming that telling someone this is what happens when you do something is NOT blaming them?

 

[Onceler]

"I didn't say Obama was to blame for this! "

LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

i have no idea what happend to you while you were gone, i used to like your posts. i still do, but, dixie.....you're being completely dishonest by claiming you didn't blame obama....let's see your words (and i'll do the full quote so you can't come back later and claim i took you out of context):

are you actually claiming that....blood on someone's hands means they are NOT to blame?

are you actually claiming that telling someone this is what happens when you do something is NOT blaming them?

And I don't know what happened to you, maybe you had a full frontal lobotomy? Because you once seemed like a right-wing conservative, now you sound like a pinhead liberal asswipe idiot.

I did NOT blame Obama! Pay attention.... There is a major distinct difference between "BLAMING" someone, and saying that someone bears some responsibility for failing to lead! I even went so far as to correct any possible misunderstanding, by clarifying my remarks and reiterating that I was NOT blaming Obama for what some nutcase did. Even with that, you insist that I said something I never said, and you are pulling my quotes and making the text big to emphasize what you think is a contradiction, because you apparently think you are shaming me somehow.

I guess the lobotomy affected your overall ability to THINK!

 

[Onceler]

"shameless" just isn't a strong enough word. I've gotta go to the thesaurus...

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

UOTE=Dixie;548865]And I don't know what happened to you, maybe you had a full frontal lobotomy? Because you once seemed like a right-wing conservative, now you sound like a pinhead liberal asswipe idiot.

i see...anyone who disagree with you and proves you wrong must be an pinhead....

real honesty dixie

I did NOT blame Obama! Pay attention.... There is a major distinct difference between "BLAMING" someone, and saying that someone bears some responsibility for failing to lead! I even went so far as to correct any possible misunderstanding, by clarifying my remarks and reiterating that I was NOT blaming Obama for what some nutcase did. Even with that, you insist that I said something I never said, and you are pulling my quotes and making the text big to emphasize what you think is a contradiction, because you apparently think you are shaming me somehow.

I guess the lobotomy affected your overall ability to THINK

your words speak for themselves. you haven't once defended your words, nor explained them. that is the most telling of all.

 

[Adam Weinberg]

of course that begs the question....if you sideline the constitution, what then is the purpose and reason for our great country....

is terrorism so bad at this point, that we need to sideline the constitution? the constitution is not a suicide pact, but i don't think we are anywhere near suicide....

There is no purpose at that point, in my opinion.

I raise the issue not because I agree with the proposition, but because that proposition was already being carried out in recent years.

Terrorism is not only not so bad at this point, but we're fooling ourselves to believe powers that subvert the constitution make us any safer from acts that are nearly impossible to detect. Good police work and intelligence can prevent terror attacks, but there has to be some kind of sign. What were the identifiable signs of this event?

We can look back in time and say there were indicators. But would we want a mechanism in place that could possibly detect all of these separate signs and act on them preemptively? Sure, many people would give anything to have back their loved ones they lost yesterday, but do we know the real price in freedom we would pay for that kind of "security"?

Would this be a country worth living in if we were perfectly safe at all times thanks to the overbearing action of the state? We're already perfectly safe most all of the time with a limited role played by the state and with luck, sound judgment, and good circumstances making up the balance.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

There is no purpose at that point, in my opinion.

I raise the issue not because I agree with the proposition, but because that proposition was already being carried out in recent years.

Terrorism is not only not so bad at this point, but we're fooling ourselves to believe powers that subvert the constitution make us any safer from acts that are nearly impossible to detect. Good police work and intelligence can prevent terror attacks, but there has to be some kind of sign. What were the identifiable signs of this event?

We can look back in time and say there were indicators. But would we want a mechanism in place that could possibly detect all of these separate signs and act on them preemptively? Sure, many people would give anything to have back their loved ones they lost yesterday, but do we know the real price in freedom we would pay for that kind of "security"?

Would this be a country worth living in if we were perfectly safe at all times thanks to the overbearing action of the state? We're already perfectly safe most all of the time with a limited role played by the state and with luck, sound judgment, and good circumstances making up the balance.

so....you don't want to void the constitution....

Raises again the question of whether preventing terrorism (something that could happen anywhere, be committed by anyone with some personal motive, and by a variety of mean) is something we should sideline the Constitution over.

you raised the question....what are your thoughts on this, because your post, well written, did not address that point

 

[Adam Weinberg]

so....you don't want to void the constitution....



you raised the question....what are your thoughts on this, because your post, well written, did not address that point

I suppose I just wrote it in a way that indicates the opposite of what I would hope for. To me it's not a question, but the situation in the country indicates that the political class thinks the Constitution is outdated to meet the challenge of 21st century terrorism.

But in reality, most 21st century terrorism is similar to most previous forms of terrorism. The Constitution, in addition to practical measures, is likely one of the best means in my view, to defend the country against what our enemies would like to do to us.

I guess what I was trying to say is that since terrorism can come from entirely unexpected sources as the attack yesterday, I don't really think it makes sense to devise a system that pretends to be able to protect us from something we often cannot even anticipate.

You can ask anyone who knows my schtick better that I wasn't suggesting anything be done outside of the Constitution.

 

[Canceled1]

i see....so because idiot liberals blamed bush for katrina, you must blame obama for this....??



i agree, he is out of touch, but he is not to blame.



what sword? questions, truth, debate? you want me to sheath that? i don't understand your last sentence....

Read what I said and not what you want me to say. Don't put words in my mouth or attribute your above "must blame obama" quote to me. What I am saying is the liberals need to toughen the hell up and if they can't stand a little finger pointing and unjustified blame then stop participating in discussions, debates, etc because you're not tough enough.

If we spewed half the crap that was spewed our direction the libs would have a catatonic fit and drop to the floor in convulsions.

I have zero tolerance for any whining at all from the libs after 8 years of stinking sheep $hit flung by every liberal news agency, movie star, senator, ex-president, and congressperson who felt they had a right malign our president when we had men and women fighting a war and endangering their lives so they could open their lying traps.

Sheath your sword meant your spoiling for a fight with me, or in the very least to win a point.

Your point is yours and mine is mine. I can live with it.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

I suppose I just wrote it in a way that indicates the opposite of what I would hope for. To me it's not a question, but the situation in the country indicates that the political class thinks the Constitution is outdated to meet the challenge of 21st century terrorism.

But in reality, most 21st century terrorism is similar to most previous forms of terrorism. The Constitution, in addition to practical measures, is likely one of the best means in my view, to defend the country against what our enemies would like to do to us.

I guess what I was trying to say is that since terrorism can come from entirely unexpected sources as the attack yesterday, I don't really think it makes sense to devise a system that pretends to be able to protect us from something we often cannot even anticipate.

You can ask anyone who knows my schtick better that I wasn't suggesting anything be done outside of the Constitution.

so, the constitution is a living document? should the constitution anticipate everthing?

i don't understand this sentence:

The Constitution, in addition to practical measures, is likely one of the best means in my view, to defend the country against what our enemies would like to do to us

you raise the question about suspending the constitution, yet say that is the best defense.....